Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article sets out by briefly surveying recent scholarship on the Seleukid kingdom and Hellenistic queenship. Two important works that fall into both fields: Women and Monarchy in the Ancient World edited by Beth Carney and Sabine Müller (2021) and Basilissa authored by Christiane Kunst (2022). The discussion, however, concentrates on the first monograph that systematically explores Seleukid queenship: Robin Hämmerling’s Zwischen dynastischem Selbstbild und literarischem Stereotyp. Königinnen der Seleukiden und der Mittelmächte Kleinasiens (2019). By investigating the roles of the sister and the mother of the king as well as inter-dynastic marriages, Hämmerling explores the extent of the basilissa’s autonomous agency. Revisiting the evidence leads the author of the present article to many alternative views, especially concerning the early Seleukid women from Apama over Stratonike to Laodike I-IV . While Hämmerling rightly identifies the sibling marriage among the Seleukids as ritual role play until the generation of Antiochos III, the same arguments should have induced him to challenge the standard claim that there was a radical change beginning with Antiochos the son of Antiochos III. Another shortcoming is the assumption of monogamy as the norm in the House of Seleukos, although the evidence clearly favours polygamy as the prevailing model. But Hämmerling’s main conclusion is confirmed: the political power of the Seleukid queen was limited and confined to some instances of troubled successions; her typical role was to represent the royal family rather than to rule. Yet he omits an investigation into the basilissa title. He follows the traditional view that it could be borne by every woman of the king’s family, whereas the present paper argues that it is mostly attested for only one woman, namely the mother of the designated successor, co-ruling king, or king after his succession. The position of the basilissa was thus to support the smooth dynastic transition at the polygamous court, it did not come with any institutional power.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".